PostGame Thread: Warriors @ Dolts

old skool · Post #141 » by **old skool** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:24 pm

Does anyone here think that an NBA team will succeed playing Royal Ivey over 42-minutes in a game?

Forget about coaching, and effort and Bogut vs. Redd. The NBA, ultimately, is about talent. And when your lineup is relying on Royal Ivey, you are at a huge disadvantage. I suspect part of the reliance on Ivey was a reaction to Don Nelson's run and gun approach, but still. Royal Ivey is not a 40+ minute player in the NBA.

The reality is that the Bucks, once again, found themselves without a SF. Simmons and Mason out with injury. That forced the Bucks to rely on a three guard offense. The Warriors bombed away and made their shots.

oLd sKool

old skool · Post #142 » by **old skool** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:30 pm

I don't think that us fans should get too excited about Michael Redd's comments when they are presented out of context.

His answer, is not as revealing as it would be if we knew the question.

If he was asked "What do you think the key was to this loss", and he responded that the offense was not run through him and he just stood around patiently, then it sounds like he is complaining.

But if he was asked "What did the Warriors do to hold you to three shots and four points in the second half, after you opened with 20 points in the first half?", his comments would be benign.

old sKool

showtimesam · Post #143 » by **showtimesam** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:41 pm

I dont think acie law is a big deal in the trade. In fact I'd keep starting royal ivey at the point the rest of the year.

But getting Marvin Williams back and dumping bobby would be more than enough reason for me to do this trade. That frontline would have massive potential of Williams/Yi/Bogut.

europa · Post #144 » by **europa** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:55 pm

REDDzone wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I'm just curious Europa, by your recent posts you seem to be pointing out the difference a big-time pg can make for a team by emphasizing how Mo has been outclassed by all-star PGs lately and saying how far Mo is seperated from that tier.

It seems like you really believe we need a guy like that on our team to be successful. When talking about a guy like Law, do you think he has that much potential that he would be worth trading Mo for? (Come on people, we aren't getting a guy like Law for our trash.)

Do you think he has that much more potential than Mo? Or would you abdicate this trade to make him a cheap stop-gap until we can sign or draft a (potential) superstar PG?

I think Law's ceiling is much higher than Mo's as a PG. I always have. He will take some time to develop and his PG skills do need work. But I think his defensive potential is there (and frankly, it wouldn't take much for him to be an improvement over Mo in that department). I view him more as a project at the PG position but I definitely like his potential for the future to grow into the position.

midranger · Post #145 » by **midranger** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:51 pm

Redd

for

Marvin Williams
Acie Law
Speedy Claxton

is trade checker approved.

midranger · Post #146 » by **midranger** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:55 pm

Acie Law is 23 years old.

At 22 years old, Mo was putting 10-6-3.

I don't know how ANYONE could believe that Law has a higher ceiling at PG than Mo, unless thats just what they want to believe. There is certainly no shred of evidence.

Mike X · Post #147 » by **Mike X** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:23 am

bigzy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

So you think if Ts had relied on Bogut he would still have his job?? How long do you think Lk will have his with the current record? It isn't about anything but winning and no they would not have won more games relying on Bogut last year as evidenced by what happenned when others were out.

All true and its hindsight now but maybe the thought process of the front office may have been "look how well Terrys brought Boguts game along, we'll give him another year and see how he goes."

:dontknow: